The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 4(1) of the Medical Treatment and Custody Act provides that "Any prosecutor may file a request for medical treatment and custody with the competent court where a person subject to medical treatment and custody needs to receive medical treatment and custody," and Article 4(7) of the same Act provides that "the court may request a prosecutor to file a request for medical treatment and custody when it deems it necessary to do so as a result of the examination of a prosecuted case." In light of the regulatory form thereof, Article 4(7) of the Medical Treatment and Custody Act cannot be deemed as imposing

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4211 Decided September 14, 2006). Therefore, we cannot accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal purporting that the lower court’s failure to request a prosecutor for a medical treatment and custody application is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal doctrine regarding the binding act of the subject of medical treatment and custody and the claim

In addition, in light of the above legal principles, in the instant case where there was no prosecutor’s request for medical treatment and custody, there is no error of failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the requirements for medical treatment and custody or

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.